Enjoying the thread, why see the potential pixel as a failure - or the blue line on a blue background? from another point of view they're too perfect, a perfection that renders invisible, no distinction between figure and background. couldn't this rather emphasize the code aspect of the work as opposed to the visual?
i was also thinking about a 'digital diagonal', which when made of pixels you could prove that couldn't exist. the length of a line created by a pixel-diagonal wouldn't be the square root of vertical+horizontal, but just their addition. for many years i thought i'd be taking the shortest route by going diagonally from a to b through the city, but i was wrong. if the city is perfectly squared it doesn't matter which route you take from a to b, the total distance is the same, vertical+horizontal. bjørn On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 7:51 PM Alan Sondheim via NetBehaviour < netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote: > Or perhaps something like ontology beats epistemology every time! :-) > (which brings actually my own work emphasizing the body permeating digital > media, the body as fundamental, not cyborgian attachments, no matter the > tacit knowledge involved.) > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 1:39 PM Pall Thayer <pallt...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Alan, >> >> Thanks for the input. I did a search for 'abacus art' and some >> interesting stuff came up. >> >> It's interesting to think about the pixel as having potential, especially >> when that potential is failure. And, I guess that's really what I'm >> considering. That is, creating pieces that don't work in their "natural" >> environment, the browser. For instance, if I create a web page that uses >> javascript to draw a blue line on a blue background, the line isn't going >> to be visible. It fails to produce the work in a compelling way because my >> compositional considerations (the dynamics between the line and the >> background) are lost. But if I "interpret" that code in wood and glue a >> block of blue wood onto a blue panel, the line will be visible. It >> strengthens the composition. So, it could be argued that the environment >> that is intended to interpret that code fails while the same interpretation >> in a physical material produces a completely different and possibly better >> version. >> >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 12:39 PM Alan Sondheim via NetBehaviour < >> netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote: >> >>> It's interesting when the two come together; I'm thinking of work I've >>> done (and I'm sure others have) with abacus/abaci? - they're an odd mixture >>> (today) of digital and analog of course, and when I was teaching (= allowed >>> to teach), I used them to develop the idea of potential wells, errors, and >>> so forth. The movement of a bead could be considered the change of a pixel, >>> particularly in the 1 position. >>> I hope it's possible to develop the idea of the physical somehow - >>> within the browser or other active digital environment, the pixel is always >>> already potential; I keep thinking of things like a lead cube on a matrix >>> that's heated so maybe in a century it falls off its support... >>> >>> fascinating, Alan >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 12:12 PM Pall Thayer via NetBehaviour < >>> netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote: >>> >>>> As some on this list know, for many years, I've been pushing the notion >>>> that programming code should be viewed as an artistic medium when it's used >>>> to create art. The artist molds it into shape, as they would with a lump of >>>> clay, until it takes its final form. When I've discussed these ideas, I've >>>> always gotten a lot of pushback. People will say that programming code is a >>>> tool, like a paintbrush, not the medium, like paint. I don't agree. This >>>> notion has piqued my interest again in the wake of a rising trend where >>>> artists are creating graphic images by only using HTML/CSS (e.g. >>>> https://a.singlediv.com/ , https://diana-adrianne.com/purecss-francine/ >>>> ). >>>> >>>> The problem with computer programmed art, however, is that it requires >>>> a computer. In my mind, there really hasn't been any justifiable reason to >>>> display computer programmed art on anything other than a computer... unless >>>> it adds something significant to the work. And this is something >>>> interesting that has recently occurred to me. I came up with this really >>>> simply piece: >>>> >>>> http://pallthayer.dyndns.org/notApixel/ >>>> >>>> And have decided that this piece, although based entirely on computer >>>> programming code, will work better when divorced from the computer and the >>>> browser's interpretation of the code. On my 4k screen, it's practically >>>> impossible to see the red pixel in the center. If I remove the work from >>>> the environment that interprets the code, I'm free to determine the size of >>>> a single pixel: >>>> >>>> http://pallthayer.dyndns.org/notApixel/notApixel.png >>>> >>>> And I could choose to produce that piece in any physical material I >>>> want. It could be a block of wood glued to a panel of wood. What determines >>>> the size of a pixel of wood? What determines the result of a hexadecimal >>>> color code when it's been removed from the computer? If the code is to be >>>> interpreted in wood, what does #f00 mean? >>>> >>>> My main point is that with the example shown above, the piece can be >>>> made to work better at a conceptual level than it would if it were not >>>> removed from the browser environment. >>>> >>>> I'd love to hear other people's ideas on this. I did just write this >>>> all off the top of my head, so if I'm rambling and things don't make sense, >>>> just ask and I'll do my best to clarify. >>>> >>>> Pall Thayer >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ***************************** >>>> Pall Thayer >>>> artist >>>> http://pallthayer.dyndns.org >>>> ***************************** >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NetBehaviour mailing list >>>> NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org >>>> https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *=====================================================* >>> >>> *directory http://www.alansondheim.org <http://www.alansondheim.org> tel >>> 718-813-3285**email sondheim ut panix.com <http://panix.com>, sondheim >>> ut gmail.com <http://gmail.com>* >>> *=====================================================* >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NetBehaviour mailing list >>> NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org >>> https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >>> >> >> >> -- >> ***************************** >> Pall Thayer >> artist >> http://pallthayer.dyndns.org >> ***************************** >> > > > -- > *=====================================================* > > *directory http://www.alansondheim.org <http://www.alansondheim.org> tel > 718-813-3285**email sondheim ut panix.com <http://panix.com>, sondheim ut > gmail.com <http://gmail.com>* > *=====================================================* > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org > https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
